POOJA Vs. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 16th August, 2017.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has filed documents and has drawn attention to the order dated 2nd May, 2016, in the suit from which this petition arises, on an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Though the application was under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC but from a reading of the order dated 2nd May, 2016, it is clear that the impleadment of the petitioner as defendant in the suit was on the demise of her father and in substitution of her father and not owing to any independent right of the petitioner. Merely because the nomenclature of Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC has been used would not change the position in law, of the petitioner having come into picture as an heir of her father.

(3.) What thus transpires is that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC was filed after ten years from the institution of the suit. Be that as it may, the merits of the matter have also been considered. The suit filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff from which this petition arises, is for recovery of possession of immovable property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, disposing of, transferring, alienating and parting with possession of the said property.